Colorado presidential electors who do not vote for Hillary Clinton as the winner of the state’s vote risk criminal charges after a Denver judge delivered the second setback in two days to an effort to block Donald Trump from winning the presidency.

Denver District Judge Elizabeth Starrs ruled that state law requires members of the Electoral College, when the body meets at noon Monday, to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates who received the most votes in Colorado.

The order also granted authority to the Secretary of State Wayne Williams, a Republican, to replace electors who violate the law — essentially ending Colorado’s role in the “Hamilton Electors” movement to keep Trump from the White House.

“If (presidential electors) take the oath and then they violate the statute, there will be repercussions,” Starrs said in an order from the bench.

The judge declined to outline the possible penalties but said she believes state law allows electors who take the oath as a public official to face criminal charges. Public officers charged with failing to fulfill their duty, a misdemeanor, can receive up to a $1,000 fine and one year in jail.

Democratic electors in Colorado are threatening to abandon Clinton and partner with Republican electors in other states to nominate an alternative candidate — a last-ditch move to prevent Trump from receiving the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

The Democratic electors were chosen by state party activists at congressional and state conventions in April. Two of the Colorado electors are Bernie Sanders loyalists, and one supports Clinton. But all adamantly argue Trump is unqualified for office.

Moments after the ruling, the two electors who appeared in court Tuesday declined to say how they will vote when the Electoral College meets at the state Capitol.

“As someone once said, we are going to keep you in suspense,” said attorney Jesse Witt, quoting Trump.

The two electors, Polly Baca, a former state lawmaker, and Robert Nemanich, an El Paso County teacher, are considering whether to seek an emergency appeal of the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

The ruling, Witt said, is a “fundamental abridgment to their right to free speech and free expression.”

The entire “faithless electors” effort is unprecedented in Colorado and led Williams to ask the Denver judge to make a ruling about how to respond if members of the Electoral College violated the law.

Witt argued the request overstepped the court’s authority, despite a broad state law that gives judges the ability to intervene in election cases.

“Essentially … they are asking you to take off your judge’s hat, put on your legislator’s hat, write out a bill, and then put on your governor’s hat and sign it,” Witt argued in the three-hour hearing. “And that’s not something you can do with our system of government under the separation of powers.”

Assistant Attorney General Chris Jackson told the judge that the state needed guidance to protect the integrity of the process. “We need an order. … That is the only way to stop these electors from disenfranchising over 3 million voters in Colorado who have made their wishes known through the electoral process,” he said.

Witt countered with an argument that many of them share the electors’ concerns about Trump and “believe that the Electoral College has a federal duty to protect against someone allegedly under foreign influence, allegedly unfit for office.”

Outside the courtroom after the hearing, Williams said that if electors take the oath and cast a vote for another candidate, they should face criminal charges.“I think if you take the oath and immediately violate it, I think that’s appropriate,” he said.

But he hopes it doesn’t come to that point. “I think the electors will think about that,” he added. “And it’s my hope that each of the electors will make the decision to follow Colorado law.”

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that whistleblower protections passed by Congress in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 apply only when those alleging corporate misdeeds bring their information to the government.

A prominent white nationalist is suing Twitter for banning his accounts at a time when social networks are trying to crack down on hateful and abusive content without appearing to censor unpopular opinions.

The social media service Twitter is believed to have suspended thousands of accounts for being automated bots, or for other policy violations, drawing outcry from fringe conservative media figures who lost followers in the move.